Another vote for active. I've owned a couple of passive units which sounded so "clean and open" on initial hook up I was impressed. But ultimate lack of drive and dynamics always caused me to return to an active unit.
There is one significant value to owning an inexpensive passive unit (can be assembled with <$15 for a stereo pot, two pair of female RCA jacks, some wire and a small box) -- that is to test the transparency of any "active" preamp under audition. A good unit should be as open sounding (lacking in distortion) as the test mule passive box.
Also, I agree with Sam Tellig that a "passive preamp" is an oxymoron term.
There is one significant value to owning an inexpensive passive unit (can be assembled with <$15 for a stereo pot, two pair of female RCA jacks, some wire and a small box) -- that is to test the transparency of any "active" preamp under audition. A good unit should be as open sounding (lacking in distortion) as the test mule passive box.
Also, I agree with Sam Tellig that a "passive preamp" is an oxymoron term.